Any plan to restrict sale of liquor in hotel bars and clubs located close to educational institutions? Madras High Court asks Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

The Madras High Court wants clearer safeguards for liquor bars operating near educational institutions. It asked the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise whether any norms should govern licences for such bars. The concern arose after students allegedly drank at a nearby hotel bar and became involved in a fight.

The court specifically sought the rules, government orders, circulars, or guidelines governing Form F.L.3 licences. It asked whether those rules set a minimum distance from an educational institution, student hostel, or place of worship. It also requested the licence details for El Dorado bar at SRM Hotel in Potheri.

The Commissioner must provide the bar’s distance from the nearest institutional gate, building, or hostel. That distance must follow the route an ordinary pedestrian would take. The officer must also explain whether the institution’s location and student population were considered before the licence was granted or renewed, and what action may follow.

In this case, an FL.3 licence is the licence connected with operating a liquor bar in a hotel. The article discusses the licence because El Dorado bar operates at SRM Hotel in Potheri, near Chennai. It does not provide the complete statutory definition or every category of premises covered by FL.3.

The court asked the Commissioner to explain the rules, government orders, circulars, and other guidelines governing the grant and renewal of an FL.3 licence. It specifically wanted to know whether those rules impose distance requirements involving educational institutions, student hostels, or places of worship. The licence therefore matters as the legal basis for the hotel bar’s operation.

The Commissioner must also clarify whether the college’s proximity and student population were considered when the licence was granted or renewed. The case does not state whether the licence will be cancelled, changed, or renewed differently. Those issues depend on the information sought by the court.

Three students were injured in the incident that prompted the court’s intervention. The article states that they were hit with a beer bottle on September 26, 2026. Their injuries added urgency to questions about alcohol access near the educational institution.

The injured students were treated at SRM Hospital. The article does not describe the exact injuries, their ages, or how long they remained under care. It links the incident to a brawl involving students who were consuming liquor at a bar attached to an adjacent hotel reportedly run by the college management.

The court was considering an anticipatory bail petition filed by a 19-year-old college student accused of taking part in the fight. Justice N. Ramesh ordered that the petitioner should not be arrested until further orders, provided he cooperates with the investigation and appears for inquiry whenever required. The treatment detail formed part of the court’s concern.

For licensing review, the court wants distance measured in a practical way rather than simply by a straight line. The Commissioner was directed to provide the distance between the bar and the nearest gate, building, or hostel of the educational institution. The relevant measurement must reflect an ordinary pedestrian’s route.

This approach focuses on the path students or other people would actually use to travel between the premises. In the case, the court sought this information for El Dorado bar at SRM Hotel in Potheri. It also asked whether the bar’s premises lies within a municipal area, another detail potentially relevant to the licensing framework.

The article does not state the measured distance. It also does not say whether a minimum-distance rule currently exists. The Commissioner must explain the applicable rules and whether proximity to the institution and its student population was considered before the FL.3 licence was granted or renewed.

The court wanted transparency about the relationship between the educational institution and the hotel containing the bar. Justice N. Ramesh impleaded SRM Institute of Science and Technology as a respondent in the anticipatory bail petition. He directed its Registrar to disclose whether the college management had any connection whatsoever with SRM Hotel.

That question matters because the bar was reportedly attached to an adjacent hotel run by the college management. The case involved students who were allegedly consuming liquor there before a brawl. Establishing any institutional connection could help the court understand who controlled or influenced the premises.

The Registrar must also disclose what steps the institute took to prevent students from consuming alcohol. The article does not state whether a connection exists, what the institute’s measures were, or whether the hotel is formally managed by the college. Those facts were requested for the court’s further consideration.

If authorities introduce or enforce minimum-distance rules, liquor bars near colleges, hostels, or places of worship could face closer licensing scrutiny. Their licences might be granted, renewed, restricted, or refused according to the final rules. The article does not say which consequence will occur or whether any rule has already been adopted.

The court asked the Commissioner to identify existing norms and explain whether they prescribe a minimum distance. It also sought the actual pedestrian distance from El Dorado bar to the educational institution’s nearest gate, building, or hostel. These details could determine whether the bar complies with any applicable requirement.

The Commissioner was further asked what action would be taken in future. That leaves the next step open. The court may receive the licensing information before assessing safeguards, while the institute must explain its connection with the hotel and efforts to prevent student alcohol consumption.

Governments regulate alcohol sales to control where and how liquor is available, especially around places serving students or the public. Near colleges, hostels, and schools, proximity may raise concerns about underage access, drinking by students, and disorder. Places of worship are also included in the court’s questions about possible distance rules.

The case shows the concern in concrete terms. A 19-year-old college student allegedly joined a brawl after students consumed liquor at a bar attached to an adjacent hotel. Three students were injured after a hit with a beer bottle on September 26, 2026, and were treated at SRM Hospital. These facts prompted scrutiny of the nearby bar’s licence.

The court has not imposed a new rule in the article. Instead, it asked whether safeguards exist, whether distance was considered, and what action may be taken. Its questions could guide future licensing decisions and institutional measures, but the final outcome remains pending.